Incredibles 2 Review & Comments

Waited 14 years for this and... rather disappointed, I'm afraid. Fantastic animation, absolute state of the art, as the film never tires of showing off whilst putting the narrative on hold, again. Every box has been ticked but what is missing, in so much of its overlong running time (Parents with younger children should take heed), are the humour and charm that made the original film so appealing: audience reaction was muted, at best. And within the showboating and grandstanding of the animation ("Say, let's swing the camera around the indoor fountain AGAIN!"), box ticking, and not to forget the social and sexual politicking and virtue signalling that are now obligatory, simple things like plot and characterisation go amiss. I failed to pick up on why the villain is doing what they do! I asked a couple of people afterwards, just in case I had blinked and missed it, but no! They didn't really grasp that either! And the same with the, for me, overly manipulative short at the beginning. Appeal to China by all mean, but what was it actually about? If anyone here can put me straight on these two, many thanks. So whilst I have revisited The Incredibles many times, this film is a one time only for me and I'm hoping the new Hotel Transylvania will give me the animated yucks I'm looking for.


THANKS, I wasn't completely happy with this sequel. Felt the 1st one should've remained the 1 off classic that it was. To me, it was a classic "Bond/Spy Thriller" for kids and still is extremely enjoyable to watch.
This episode seemed to be a lot of box ticking with a very predictable outcome.
There were a few humorous moments, though my audience was muted somewhat.
Sound, picture and animation are state of the art, as expected.
But throughout the whole film, I was left with one puzzling thought which I thought would be answered
"The Underminer" was where the 1st film and this one joined, but he was just a 5 minute introduction and then he simply......."got away". It then went straight into the new story and just had me thinking all the way through, why? "Frozones" character didn't sit right with me and "Void" just reminded me of Marvels Dr Strange. So maybe that was the problem for me. This film reminded me of too many others.
 
THANKS, I wasn't completely happy with this sequel. Felt the 1st one should've remained the 1 off classic that it was. To me, it was a classic "Bond/Spy Thriller" for kids and still is extremely enjoyable to watch.
This episode seemed to be a lot of box ticking with a very predictable outcome.
There were a few humorous moments, though my audience was muted somewhat.
Sound, picture and animation are state of the art, as expected.
But throughout the whole film, I was left with one puzzling thought which I thought would be answered
"The Underminer" was where the 1st film and this one joined, but he was just a 5 minute introduction and then he simply......."got away". It then went straight into the new story and just had me thinking all the way through, why? "Frozones" character didn't sit right with me and "Void" just reminded me of Marvels Dr Strange. So maybe that was the problem for me. This film reminded me of too many others.

Brad Bird said he refused to do a sequel until he was sure he could make it better than the original: historians will argue this one, although we got there first ;). I don't regret having seen it and, obviously, I fell victim to my own hopes and expectations as well.

As to
"The Underminer" I can only speculate. Maybe they wanted to start with a big dramatic sequence, which is often the case these days, simply to get the audience's adrenaline flowing, and also tap into something from the first film. Maybe the production took a dramatic turn somewhere and that sequence was produced and it was a shame not to use it, as it were. No idea. But I agree: it was a great set up that went nowhere. Might we see the continuation in the next film? So far The Incredibles 2 has had a great opening and reviews so a third film would seem a given, just not in 14 years time though! "Frozone" was simple box ticking from the market research: audiences like him so given him more to say and do. "Void" struck me as original and I liked how they matched her personality to her superpowers, as well as integrated them both into the narrative, but you are right, the similarity with Dr. Strange did not go unnoticed. Yes, definitely more derivative than original.
 
The Underminer
is the 'Blofeld' of the Incredibles universe. He's the one who always escapes to fight another day. Maybe they'll take him down in another installment- doesn't matter. He wasn't the focus of the story. The opening scene (like many franchise films eg Bond, Indy) starts with a cool action scene unrelated to the rest of the film. I don't see either of those things as a 'flaw'.

"Void" struck me as original and I liked how they matched her personality to her superpowers, as well as integrated them both into the narrative, but you are right, the similarity with Dr. Strange did not go unnoticed. Yes, definitely more derivative than original.

And Dr Strange's powers were similar to Blink from X-Men Days of Future Past. And her powers were similar to the game 'Portal'. In the final analysis very few things can escape the charge of being 'derivative'.

The original was derivative as the Incredibles superpowers were basically the same as The Fantastic Four. Hardly a problem.

You're fixated on incidental details but missing the fact that this is a story about family. That's the aspect that's ultimately important.
 
The Underminer
is the 'Blofeld' of the Incredibles universe. He's the one who always escapes to fight another day. Maybe they'll take him down in another installment- doesn't matter. He wasn't the focus of the story. The opening scene (like many franchise films eg Bond, Indy) starts with a cool action scene unrelated to the rest of the film. I don't see either of those things as a 'flaw'.



And Dr Strange's powers were similar to Blink from X-Men Days of Future Past. And her powers were similar to the game 'Portal'. In the final analysis very few things can escape the charge of being 'derivative'.

The original was derivative as the Incredibles superpowers were basically the same as The Fantastic Four. Hardly a problem.

You're fixated on incidental details but missing the fact that this is a story about family. That's the aspect that's ultimately important.

You need to close the Spoiler otherwise you spoil it!! :eek:

I was replying to points raised directly by greycounciller and I wouldn't consider them "incidental". That's one heck of an opening sequence only to have it dropped totally. Not so much incidental but, you could argue, also irrelevant. The first film was also about family and did it much better.
 
I was replying to points raised directly by greycounciller and I wouldn't consider them "incidental". That's one heck of an opening sequence only to have it dropped totally. Not so much incidental but, you could argue, also irrelevant.

Ever seen a Bond or Indiana Jones or Avengers film? They often start with an action scene that's separate from the main film. Its also not irrelevant as the action scene with
The Underminer (specifically the damage caused)
directly affects the plot. It's why
Helen is chosen to represent the new wave of Supers, rather than Bob
.


The first film was also about family and did it much better.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'did it much better'. They aren't doing the same thing, but continuing the story. The family dynamics are different this time round.
 
The Underminer
is the 'Blofeld' of the Incredibles universe. He's the one who always escapes to fight another day. Maybe they'll take him down in another installment- doesn't matter. He wasn't the focus of the story. The opening scene (like many franchise films eg Bond, Indy) starts with a cool action scene unrelated to the rest of the film. I don't see either of those things as a 'flaw'.



And Dr Strange's powers were similar to Blink from X-Men Days of Future Past. And her powers were similar to the game 'Portal'. In the final analysis very few things can escape the charge of being 'derivative'.

The original was derivative as the Incredibles superpowers were basically the same as The Fantastic Four. Hardly a problem.

You're fixated on incidental details but missing the fact that this is a story about family. That's the aspect that's ultimately important.

Whereas the opening scene is supposed to be a taster this one served up expectations of a narrative that did not exist.

You are confusing 'What happens?' with 'What is it about?' Whereas the first film was about the family this one deconstructs the family unit into what are essentially two separate narratives. Yes, it is about the family, it is about the father having to parent his children instead of being the breadwinner, it is about the baby developing as a person, it is about the daughter becoming a young woman, it is about... many things. But all those elements have to be narrated, and you cannot divorce the 'how' from the 'why'.
 
Whereas the opening scene is supposed to be a taster this one served up expectations of a narrative that did not exist.

It did? I never 'expected' the story to be about
The Underminer
. Why would you assume that, based on a opening scene? The scene serves its dual purpose of connecting to the first film, and setting up an important plot thread. That's it. It suggests nothing about being the narrative.

You are confusing 'What happens?' with 'What is it about?' Whereas the first film was about the family this one deconstructs the family unit into what are essentially two separate narratives. Yes, it is about the family, it is about the father having to parent his children instead of being the breadwinner, it is about the baby developing as a person, it is about the daughter becoming a young woman, it is about... many things. But all those elements have to be narrated, and you cannot divorce the 'how' from the 'why'.

I'm afraid you've lost me, to the point where I've forgotten what your objections are to the story. What's wrong with 'what happens' in the film? The first movie separates the family as well.
 
It did? I never 'expected' the story to be about
The Underminer
. Why would you assume that, based on a opening scene? The scene serves its dual purpose of connecting to the first film, and setting up an important plot thread. That's it. It suggests nothing about being the narrative.



I'm afraid you've lost me, to the point where I've forgotten what your objections are to the story. What's wrong with 'what happens' in the film? The first movie separates the family as well.

I expected it because of that very connection to the first film, especially as it contains enough material to have formed at least a significant part of the narrative. Instead, it is dropped entirely.

The story lacked, for starters, a decent villain. Syndrome was brilliant, inflicting real emotional pain on the family, for example. The film expands the characters' universe but not their emotions: the action scenes, fantastically animated as they are, don't do anything for the characters. It's a decent Pixar film, but not a great Pixar film and, as I've mentioned before, after waiting 14 years my expectations and hopes were simply too high. Whisper it not, but I ended up being more bored than entertained. As always, though, other people's mileage can and will vary.
 
My 16 y/o daughter wasn’t happy they used the latest ‘snazzed-up’ animation. She wished the’d used the original style. I know what she means..
 
They did.

No, there’s a difference. Yes, the character's are the same in how they look, but the quality of the animation is different and far more detailed. The original has more of a cartoon quality but I2 is far more high definition animation.
 
Last edited:
My 16 y/o daughter wasn’t happy they used the latest ‘snazzed-up’ animation. She wished the’d used the original style. I know what she means..

The same for me. They kept the original style but the technology has moved on in the interim 14 years for sure and they put it to full use, which I think actually reduced the film's 'watchability' at times.
 
Entertaining film but when compared to the original Incredibles this falls way short, after Pixar coming off from one of their strongest films ever (Coco) this was a very predictable and unworthy sequel based off a 14 year wait. Like most films released the Villains are always half baked and you have no real interest in their character or motive.

It was enjoyable but instantly forgettable.

3/5
 
Entertaining film but when compared to the original Incredibles this falls way short, after Pixar coming off from one of their strongest films ever (Coco) this was a very predictable and unworthy sequel based off a 14 year wait. Like most films released the Villains are always half baked and you have no real interest in their character or motive.

It was enjoyable but instantly forgettable.

3/5

Nailed it :thumbsup:
 
No, there’s a difference. Yes, the character's are the same in how they look, but the quality of the animation is different and far more detailed. The original has more of a cartoon quality but I2 is far more high definition animation.

The same for me. They kept the original style but the technology has moved on in the interim 14 years for sure and they put it to full use, which I think actually reduced the film's 'watchability' at times.

Exactly the same as Toy Story 3 then. Of course the animation will improve in 14 years. The important thing was they kept the retro-style and cartoon aesthetic. I'm not sure what you wanted... 14 year old graphics?
 
Finally got to watch this in 3D with Atmos at Southampton Showcase with a group of friends.

Cinema was busy, plenty of kids of all ages and most importantly it had serious air-con! Sound and picture where great, although there was a bit of lip-sync drift in places. I'd managed to avoid trailers and spoilers for the film, but had (fortunately) re-watched the original film on Friday evening in HD.

The film has it's faults, but there was enough new and expanded material with perspective shifting / updating and fan service to the original (with some sly nods to MCU and Watchmen) to more than balance that out. Although animation technology has moved on, it still felt like an Incredibles film and more of a Part 2 rather than an distinct sequel. And, despite the 14 year hiatus, the voice acting was spot on, again :cool:

General consensus amongst my friends was "sit back, disengage brain, enjoy!", can't say I can argue with that myself :)

The only real disappointment was the lack of an IMAX release; I would have loved to have seen a double bill of Incredibles 1 and 2 in IMAX :(
 
I really enjoyed it. A shade too long but nothing major to spoil the experience. The action scenes take a backseat to what the film is really about: the family.

Take back some of the humour and there's a template for a Fantastic Four film.

Also loved the short at the beginning. One of Pixar's best.
 
Exactly the same as Toy Story 3 then. Of course the animation will improve in 14 years. The important thing was they kept the retro-style and cartoon aesthetic. I'm not sure what you wanted... 14 year old graphics?

When the graphics and animation take precedence over characterisation, story and narration, then that is not an improvement unless the viewer considers them to be the more important factors. Toy Story 3 is Buzz Lightyears ahead of Incredibles 2 in those aspects I hold more important: I was watching an animated film about sentient toys and I was gripped! There were moments and scenes that actually moved me! Now I know you feel more strongly about Incredibles 2 than I do and there's nothing at all wrong with that in any shape or form, but as to which one has the stronger script, for example... Well, I know where my preference lies. You could take Snow White as another example. An absolute classic and its graphics are how old? I'm still very happy to take them, as vintage as they are. In terms of its animation, Incredibles 2 is eye-meltingly wonderful, but it is still a film and I think other important elements came up short. I don't regret seeing it but it will be interesting to see how the next one pans out, hopefully in fewer than 14 years this time. In the meantime, have you seen Coco? That hit every button for me.
 
When the graphics and animation take precedence over characterisation, story and narration, then that is not an improvement unless the viewer considers them to be the more important factors. Toy Story 3 is Buzz Lightyears ahead of Incredibles 2 in those aspects I hold more important: I was watching an animated film about sentient toys and I was gripped! There were moments and scenes that actually moved me! Now I know you feel more strongly about Incredibles 2 than I do and there's nothing at all wrong with that in any shape or form, but as to which one has the stronger script, for example... Well, I know where my preference lies.

You're arguing a point I dont disagree with. Storytelling and character should always be priority number one. And give or take, thats usually at the heart of Pixar's mantra (notwithstanding Cars 2). At the same time though, the animation is important, because that's the medium in which Pixar operate and they excel at it. Toy Story 1 was ground-breaking and new at the time, and their animation should aim to stay at the cutting edge of the industry. And apart from anything else, I love to be wowed by visuals and am not one of those people who thinks CGI is an easy or lazy solution. Its a beautiful art form in its own right and it should always aim to improve.


You could take Snow White as another example. An absolute classic and its graphics are how old? I'm still very happy to take them, as vintage as they are. In terms of its animation, Incredibles 2 is eye-meltingly wonderful, but it is still a film and I think other important elements came up short.

Again, why do think I disagree? The old Disney pictures are still a delight. Like a vintage car; one can admire the timeless beauty, elegant curves, and the excellence of the engineering. But they dont continue to manufacture those vehicles anymore, because the art of car design has evolved and improved.

I dont think Incredibles 2 compromised anything with its stunning visuals. As mentioned they kept the original's style and look intact (exactly as Toy Story 3 did), but gave richer detail and more breathtaking cinematography. And that was just icing on the cake. I thought it was a terrific sequel. Not necessarily as good as the original, because (as mentioned in my review) they cannot replicate the freshness of the first film's cheeky genre deconstruction, and they couldn't conceive a villain as memorable as Syndrome. But I genuinely think they expanded the story in all the right ways and the character development was perfect. For me. We can agree to disagree on this point :).

In the meantime, have you seen Coco? That hit every button for me.

Yes. I liked it a lot, but its not going to be a favourite of mine. Reviewed it fairly recently:

Coco -Lee Unkrick
Coco-2017-Movie-1080p-1.jpg


Disney/ Pixar doing what they do best: inaginitive world-building; eye-popping animation; easy-going humour and heartfelt emotion. In those aspects, Coco is a solid all-rounder even if it doesn't necessarily excel at any of those (except maybe the latter, which I'll get to). The story is solid and enjoyable -if constantly predictable- and the voice acting is on point with a charming protagonist. I'll admit this took me a while to get into, as I'm not really massive on Mexican music and culture. However about half-way through I was won over and along for the increasingly enjoyable ride. It's a stunner to look at too with a striking colour palette: warm oranges, cool purples and bright neons; and the world it depicts is well thought out and sticks to it's rules. The ending is especially well-done and extremely emotional, particularly in regard to the film's title character. So overall not top tier Pixar, but it gets a well-earned spot on the shelf below. 7/10

Of their 'one-off' movies, I think Inside Out is a masterpiece. And Ratatouille an underrated gem.

I'm planning to rank all the Pixar films as soon as I've got round to seeing Finding Dory which has so far eluded me.
 
You're arguing a point I dont disagree with. Storytelling and character should always be priority number one. And give or take, thats usually at the heart of Pixar's mantra (notwithstanding Cars 2). At the same time though, the animation is important, because that's the medium in which Pixar operate and they excel at it. Toy Story 1 was ground-breaking and new at the time, and their animation should aim to stay at the cutting edge of the industry. And apart from anything else, I love to be wowed by visuals and am not one of those people who thinks CGI is an easy or lazy solution. Its a beautiful art form in its own right and it should always aim to improve.




Again, why do think I disagree? The old Disney pictures are still a delight. Like a vintage car; one can admire the timeless beauty, elegant curves, and the excellence of the engineering. But they dont continue to manufacture those vehicles anymore, because the art of car design has evolved and improved.

I dont think Incredibles 2 compromised anything with its stunning visuals. As mentioned they kept the original's style and look intact (exactly as Toy Story 3 did), but gave richer detail and more breathtaking cinematography. And that was just icing on the cake. I thought it was a terrific sequel. Not necessarily as good as the original, because (as mentioned in my review) they cannot replicate the freshness of the first film's cheeky genre deconstruction, and they couldn't conceive a villain as memorable as Syndrome. But I genuinely think they expanded the story in all the right ways and the character development was perfect. For me. We can agree to disagree on this point :).



Yes. I liked it a lot, but its not going to be a favourite of mine. Reviewed it fairly recently:



Of their 'one-off' movies, I think Inside Out is a masterpiece. And Ratatouille an underrated gem.

I'm planning to rank all the Pixar films as soon as I've got round to seeing Finding Dory which has so far eluded me.

Agreed, Cars 2 is a clunker, whereas Cars 3 is just doing something really gross and non-consensual to someone whilst laughing and live streaming it. The same with your views on animation per se, but it has to remain the means to the end and not become the dog-wagging tail. If you remember when 3D first came out Hollywood started 3D'ing anything and everything: the process took over. It's now back in its box, fortunately.

As I've mentioned, I'm keen to see Incredibles 3 and that will be a given since the latest one has done splendidly well. My only caveat is that Brad Bird seems to have a creative lock on it, which was a major factor in the 14-year gap, so he could prove a hindrance in this respect.

Inside Out is simply amazing, Ratatouille as well, but it was a harder sell and went, I think, over a few too many young heads. As for Finding Dory... I'll wait till you have seen it.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom